How should responsible historians deal with the WBO belt?

[Willow The Wisp]

Obviously if one is a lineal absolutist then one will simply ignore the alphabets. But in practice I think most individuals involved with chronicling boxing history acknowledge the need to name the alphabets to some degree. So what to do with the WBO?

For a long time the WBO belt held a liminal space in boxing. It wasn't recognised in the Ring's almanac until at least 2010. The other sanctioning bodies reluctantly allowed it to join the club in stages. The US generally preferred to ignore it until fairly late in the day compared with other countries. Holyfield preferred not to have the WBO belt on the line for the third Bowe fight because he was concerned it would jeopardise his ranking with the other bodies.

The reason this question is important is because of the heavyweight division, primarily. Eventual lineal champion Wladimir Klitschko seems to have his WBO defences counted in retrospect despite many occurring when Lennox Lewis was champion and it not being a fully recognised belt. How also do we deal with the likes of Tommy Morrison, Herbie Hide and Henry Akinwande?

Good question.
From the historian's perspective; the heavyweight title liniage is the cornerstone of boxing history.
Counter-claims all have their basis in for-profit en****** or individuals attempting to corrupt the sacred history of the Modern title in exchange for personal monetary gain; and any success achieved to that end has been facilitated by unwitting fans who were duped, astoundingly; into buying their low quality wares.

Therefore; claims of being a "Heavyweight Champion of the World" outside of the tightly woven liniage, consisting of ranked (and occasionally not ranked) title contenders; be they Joe Bugner R.I.P. (WBF), Monte Masters (WAA), Lionel Butler (IBO), John Kiser (IBC), Zsolt Bogdan (GBF), Francesco Damiani (WBO) or any other, regardless of how well accepted the sanctioning body might be by the Journalism Majors who comprise the sports media persons; can be acknowledged by a sidebar listing, under the heading of "Miscellaneous non-champion world title claimants".

This approach, which seeks to maintain historical clerity, is nothing new; and functions perfectly for those who seek an understanding of the sport and it's deep roots.

[QueensburyRules]

Do we need any of them? They have messed up so many times that they all should have been disqualified by now.

Andre Ward has expressed his opinion about the orgs on several occasions, but it has fallen on deaf ears, which I think is a great shame.

- - That ain't squat compared to Wart's wannabe Imelda Marcos' Shoe Collection.

[QueensburyRules]

Good question.
From the historian's perspective; the heavyweight title liniage is the cornerstone of boxing history.
Counter-claims all have their basis in for-profit en****** or individuals attempting to corrupt the sacred history of the Modern title in exchange for personal monetary gain; and any success achieved to that end has been facilitated by unwitting fans who were duped, astoundingly; into buying their low quality wares.

Therefore; claims of being a "Heavyweight Champion of the World" outside of the tightly woven liniage, consisting of ranked (and occasionally not ranked) title contenders; be they Joe Bugner R.I.P. (WBF), Monte Masters (WAA), Lionel Butler (IBO), John Kiser (IBC), Zsolt Bogdan (GBF), Francesco Damiani (WBO) or any other, regardless of how well accepted the sanctioning body might be by the Journalism Majors who comprise the sports media persons; can be acknowledged by a sidebar listing, under the heading of "Miscellaneous non-champion world title claimants".

This approach, which seeks to maintain historical clerity, is nothing new; and functions perfectly for those who seek an understanding of the sport and it's deep roots.

- - U claiming to be a boxing historian?

Clarity in boxing? When will that occur?

I'll answer for U, ie when boxing moves to open round by round scoring. It'll still be crooked, but less so...

[The D3vil]

Basically, it wasn't truly recognized before De La Hoya/Hopkins in 2004.

Hopkins was considered "undisputed" when he held the WBA/WBC/IBF titles when he fought Trinidad in 2001.

De La Hoya had the WBO belt & his fight with Hopkins was the first time all 4 belts were considered equal.

So, basically discard anything before that.